Being a Bible thumper is counter-intuitive

Let me start by saying I do believe that there is some form of creator(christian leaning), so dont start flaming me as some atheist a$$ hole. So.... I
find it strange when I have a conversation with a Bible thumper, that they cant wrap their minds around anything new age'ish, cutting edge technology
or anything that has to do with new theoretical science ie extra dimentions, quatum physics and the like. Bible thumping is counter intuitive to me
becuz you have to be VERY open minded to TRULY believe some of the wild stories that are portrayed in the Bible. Its like they beleive any non
senseicle thing the Bible says but are completly closed minded to new info about the world we live in. Bible thumpers feel free to weigh in on why
open mindedness stops after the last chapter of the Bible. And dont say cuz its the true word of God, cuz thats just adding to the close mindedness.

["So.... I find it strange when I have a conversation with a Bible thumper, that they cant wrap their minds around anything new age'ish, cutting
edge technology or anything that has to do with new theoretical science ie extra dimentions, quatum physics and the like."]

My own recent experience on ATS is, that there's an increasing amount of new-age-but-mainly-christian-mish-mash of syncretistic religion around,
which is also the case with 'quantum-religionists'. Whereas the old-timers with endless bible-verse citations and one-way sermons slowly are
disappearing.

Which for me makes things easier, as I know something about modern physics and generally am terminally bored by bible-scholastic.

But the essential message, motive and method is the same as always: Missionary pushing of absolute doctrines, disregarding the (for missionaries)
minor detail of evidence, validation etc.

The mindset of missionaries will ever be the same. Only the wrapping changes.

Just a heads up, friend - I'm a bible-believing christian, but I don't believe it's all 'spiritual' or ethereal weirdness.

I'm very open to the idea of extra dimensions (I believe the 'spiritual' is better perceived as inter/extra-dimensional, including
angels/demons/ETs, shadow people, and so forth) and am a big fan of quantum physics ("the secret") as I believe pertains to Jesus' words on faith,
the placebo effect and various things witness so far in the quantum realm (dual-slit, entanglement, and so on).

Very interesting stuff, and I like how it seems to be moving the direction of dealing with people always astounded that anyone can believe in
'miracles' and other acts of god - given current rates in development, I think we'll find the extraordinary is actually mundane, as we are merely
ignorant children.

Praetorius- Im completely with ya on that. When I have those conversations, I try to explain to "said thumper" that a alot of new science supports the
ideas in the bible, but in a more logical way than just the blind faith mentality. I found God THROUGH science and I want to show other followers of
our creator that they should activly search God, not just be satisfied with what the Bible says. There is so much more to learn than what "BC"
knowledge and technology can provide. It pains me to see otherwise VERY inteligent people dismiss ideas supporting their own beliefs just becuz it
doesnt say that in a 2000 y/o book.

Indeed, tall one. They would do well to remember first off "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", and you can add
to that all sorts of other fun that might become involved when looking at dimensional and quantum options that might not even require
'technology'.

I have to admit a bit of enjoyment when I have discussions like this with people and they get all offended "So you think god's an
ALIEN??"..."No...I think aliens are spiritual, if you want to call it that, and yes god is alien to our understanding, although he's not biological
or from another planet."

As always, I have to say I could be entirely wrong about everything, but I have a hard time understanding why it can't all come together...the
stories can all be based in truth and memory, instead of some cultural delusion. It ties up ongoing UFO phenomena and pretty much everything else
quite nicely, in my humble opinion.

There are many open-minded Christians. Even those who strongly believe in the bible can be open-minded. I have talked with them.

But the 'bible thumpers' you describe in your post are not open-minded. Just because they believe a fantastical and extraordinary story doesn't
mean they do so because they're 'open-minded'. In fact, if that's all they believe and snap their minds closed at the first sign of something not
mentioned in the bible, that illustrates that they are probably, indeed, closed-minded.

I feel somtimes that Im the only one that can see that nearly every religon of the world has supporting science behind them, yet neither religon or
science wants to get off their dang self rightous high horse and just see that they talking about the same D*MN thing. ugh! Its like when I ask
"thumper",
Question: okay so when you die you will go to heaven?
Answer: yes
Q

kay, so how do "you" get to heaven
A:well, my soul goes there.
Q so you believe there is a part of you that is not physical that will continue on? (entanglement)
Q: where is heaven? (this is when the conversation goes south)
A: uhhhh...... uhhh.... im not sure.
This is the part where I try and tell them about alternate dimensions and universes. and them for some reason their brain locks up and they cant/wont
see the similarites.
Its just frustrating.

Originally posted by Talltexxxan
Let me start by saying I do believe that there is some form of creator(christian leaning), so dont start flaming me as some atheist a$$ hole. So.... I
find it strange when I have a conversation with a Bible thumper, that they cant wrap their minds around anything new age'ish

Because there is nothing "New" about the New Age dogma. It's satan's lie from the garden repackaged for the 20th century and beyond. (You can be
gods)

, cutting edge technology or anything that has to do with new theoretical science ie extra dimentions, quatum physics and the like.

Absurd! The more one knows about the cutting edge of physics the easier Genesis chapter 1 reads!!! In fact, it's quite amusing that the Hebrew sage
Nachmanades concluded in the 13th century after careful study of Genesis that we live in at least 10 dimensions, 4 that are "knowable" and 6 that are
"unknowable" to use his vernacular. the funny part is it took atom smashers and billions of dollars for modern scientists to discover what this
Hebrew sage did by just doing his homework in Genesis.

Bible thumping is counter intuitive to me becuz you have to be VERY open minded to TRULY believe some of the wild stories that are portrayed in
the Bible. Its like they beleive any non senseicle thing the Bible says but are completly closed minded to new info about the world we live in. Bible
thumpers feel free to weigh in on why open mindedness stops after the last chapter of the Bible. And dont say cuz its the true word of God, cuz thats
just adding to the close mindedness.

I don't agree with anything you've asserted. The more one knows about the cutting edge of quantum mechanics, the nature of light, M Theory, String
Theory, et cetra the easier Genesis reads. I do not deny UFOs at all and think they will be the "great deception" spoken of in
Revelation. Stanton Friedman the top UFO researcher in the world has said that the UFO phenomena appears to be "demonic" in nature as well as
"hyper-dimensional;" and not inter-planetary. And Mr. Friedman is not a Christian.

As I mentioned on, I believe, your thread the other day, for me it's a case of perspective to the point of being alien and above
good/evil or perceived morality, along the lines of us interacting with animals and the natural world.

we are saying the same thing. I belive that the more science you know the easier it is to understand
the bible. But it has just been my experience that most jesus freaks dont like the science behind it all and wud rather just blindly believe than to
actually have a closer relationship with the creator by learning more. thats all im sayin. Im not saying that every christian is a close minded
person, I know their not. I guess its just the people in my life refuse to look any where near the science direction.
~much love~

And on the same foundation of dogma against dogma, your statement where you meet a dogma with a dogma...

Quote: ["Because there is nothing "New" about the New Age dogma. It's satan's lie from the garden repackaged for the 20th century and beyond.
(You can be gods)"]

Yours can be seen as a counter-propagandistic lie based on dogma. I could theoretically add a third one and from gnostic direction say: "Ofcourse
we're all gods, but Pauline christianity hates that truth and suppresses it".

That you, as practically always, have your own way of presenting 'evidence' for your special dogmas through a highly (but undefined) personal
system, manifests here...

Quote: ["Absurd! The more one knows about the cutting edge of physics the easier Genesis chapter 1 reads!!!"]

Strange, I've had theoretical physics as a great interest of mine for years, and the more I learn, the more nonsense-like does genesis 1 appear to
me.

Quote: [" In fact, it's quite amusing that the Hebrew sage Nachmanades concluded in the 13th century after careful study of Genesis that we live in
at least 10 dimensions, 4 that are "knowable" and 6 that are "unknowable" to use his vernacular. the funny part is it took atom smashers and
billions of dollars for modern scientists to discover what this Hebrew sage did by just doing his homework in Genesis."]

I have on several former occasions been exposed to your special 'methodology' (as implied above), but in this case I need some more information,
before I can relate to what you write. Is 'Nachmanades' spelled correctly, and is his prophet Gerald Schroeder? I ask about the last, because you
mostly serve pre-digested 'authority' arguments from other people.

Quote: ["Stanton Friedman the top UFO researcher in the world has said that the UFO phenomena appears to be "demonic" in nature as well as
"hyper-dimensional;" and not inter-planetary. And Mr. Friedman is not a Christian."]

Source please. You have e.g. formerly cited the scientist Paul Davies out of context, in a way completely incompatible with Davies' own stances.
(It's a quite a while ago, and I don't won't to waste time searching for it, while you must have the above citation close at hand).

Paul Davies is a scientist writing popular-science on astro-physics and theoretical physics. You cited him once in an answer to Madness (MIMS) on a
thread with posts on creationist versions of science.

Gerald Schroeder is a scientist with a strong inclination towards an adaption of science towards judeo-christianity (and according to what I read
sometimes the other way round).

He has written on someone with a name very close to what you mentioned in your recent post. I was curious of more details on this, as I also am
interested in any reasonable relations/similarities between theology, metaphysics and science.

Paul Davies is a scientist writing popular-science on astro-physics and theoretical physics. You cited him once in an answer to Madness (MIMS) on a
thread with posts on creationist versions of science.

Gerald Schroeder is a scientist with a strong inclination towards an adaption of science towards judeo-christianity (and according to what I read
sometimes the other way round).

He has written on someone with a name very close to what you mentioned in your recent post. I was curious of more details on this, as I also am
interested in any reasonable relations/similarities between theology, metaphysics and science.

I don't recall the Paul Davies post or reference. I'm also not familiar with his work. My linking or quoting him must have come from a Goggle
search, right now I am not remembering the post/reference. It could have come from him being a colleague of Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist, Colorado
University. And I have no idea who Gerald Shroeder is or if he was the first to report on Nachmanades or not. I learned of his proclamations on
Genesis from a Chuck Missler commentary on Genesis. Chuck could have got his information from Mr. Shroeder, I have no idea. I also don't know if
that's the correct spelling or not, I'm remembering the name from the commentary.

Okay, after researching this the man I did not spell his name exactly right, it is "Ramban Nachmanides", he was a Hebrew sage/mystic Kabbalist and his
claims are in his 5 volume commentary on the Torah. Found here:

He has written on someone with a name very close to what you mentioned in your recent post. I was curious of more details on this, as I also am
interested in any reasonable relations/similarities between theology, metaphysics and science.

I feel you are genuine and you've been civil so far so I'd love to share my favorite Biblical commentator. It's quite a long series to watch, so it
will take some time. The Missler videos on Physics, Nature of Light, etc cetra is from his exegetical Genesis Commentary. They are quite long, I
believe he has 10 hours of Commentary on the first week of creation alone. Anyways, the journey starts here:

Don't let Madness know I've linked Missler, he'll go ballistic. I know you don't believe any of the Creationist's claims, but others may wish to view
the background data that I gave my statements from, and if you can stomach the references to God there are some good references to some fantastic
cutting-edge science and even some information not taught in college courses.

Originally posted by Talltexxxan
Noturtypical.
Your name says it all. Your not the typical.

we are saying the same thing. I belive that the more science you know the easier it is to understand
the bible. But it has just been my experience that most jesus freaks dont like the science behind it all and wud rather just blindly believe than to
actually have a closer relationship with the creator by learning more. thats all im sayin. Im not saying that every christian is a close minded
person, I know their not. I guess its just the people in my life refuse to look any where near the science direction.
~much love~

I appreciate the kind words, thank you. Glad to meet you, we share the same intrigue for science in general, Physics in particular.

I have linked on of my favorite Biblical commentators, I think you will enjoy his work if you are already not familiar.

["I don't recall the Paul Davies post or reference. I'm also not familiar with his work. My linking or quoting him must have come from a Goggle
search, right now I am not remembering the post/reference."]

It's not a major issue for me. My memory may even have failed me, as I don't have a mental index on every single post, I've read.

Quote: ["Okay, after researching this the man I did not spell his name exactly right, it is "Ramban Nachmanides", he was a Hebrew sage/mystic
Kabbalist and his claims are in his 5 volume commentary on the Torah."]

Spelling-errors happen all the time (not least to me). The main thing is the essential message; so I just wanted to be sure, that we were talking
about the same person. Nachmanides I already found and took a cursory glance at.

Quote: ["I feel you are genuine and you've been civil so far so I'd love to share my favorite Biblical commentator."]

The reciprocial civility suits me fine, but I don't have the technical possibilities of watching internet-videos. Neither do I have the time nor
interest in hour-long information. I prefer the personally presented versions/interpretations/positions, because after all, I'm debating with whoever
is at the other end of the internet, not the sources they refer to.

This is ofcourse not to be taken as a complete rejection of sources as such, there are many specialist opinions etc of value, which is outside the
scope of a layperson. But eventually we all have to relate to and evaluate such specialist information. Blind faith in authority isn't my cup of
tea.

I enjoy, when people introduce an element of humour. Madness will probably read the quote above, but I got your implied witticism.

In any case I'm not identical twins with Madness, though I share his insistence on following objective procedure, when objectivity is claimed to be
included in a debate-frame.

Quote: ["I know you don't believe any of the Creationist's claims,"]

This definitely wouldn't prevent me from informing myself on creationist positions, so while I usually ignore both atheist and theist spokes-persons,
I'll make an excepting and take a look at the person you recommended. Presently I'm mundanely busy, so it may take a short while though.

Quote: [" and if you can stomach the references to God...."]

I can stomach quite a few things, if they aren't thrown at me (or generally) as doctrinal absolutes being THE exclusive truth, which everybody MUST
acknowledge. You would probably be surprised of the amount of inconsistencies and high weirdiosity in my private life. I just don't turn them into
pseudo-objective general positions.

Quote continued: ["...... there are some good references to some fantastic cutting-edge science and even some information not taught in college
courses."]

I'm not into any p*ssing contest, but I've been at that 'cutting edge' (not only in science) for 45 years, so it's unavoidable, that I've picked
up a few things along the road; culminating in my present position of philosophical scepticism and 'relative realities' (there are other names for
these, I don't care so much about labels, as long as they are instructive).

This information about me could be of use to you, when you address me, as it explains both my rather staunch resistance to 'absolutes' and also the
methodology I use.

The reciprocial civility suits me fine, but I don't have the technical possibilities of watching internet-videos. Neither do I have the time
nor interest in hour-long information. I prefer the personally presented versions/interpretations/positions, because after all, I'm debating with
whoever is at the other end of the internet, not the sources they refer to.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.